37
   

The politics of hoodie wearing

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2012 11:26 pm
David says:
\
Quote:
Assuming, for the sake of argument,
that he said that, there remains no evidence that he later
initiated a physical battle with decedent


Nor is there any evidence that Trayvon initiated a confrontation with Zimmerman. Your implication that he did is SPECULATIVE, David, one of your favorite words. Zimmerman had the gun, the racist mind set, the racist invective on the 911 call, He was the one out looking for trouble, with a gun, in violation of the rules under which the neighborhood watch was created, patrolling in violation of the rules under which it was established (and give me no **** about stand your ground trumping that--he was doing what he should not have been). Trayvon was the one who'd gone to the store to get his brother an iced tea. He was the one with the Skittles. He was the one talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone. He was not the one being stalked.

You're espousing a vigilante society, David, one where someone's unsubstantiated story is all he needs to get away with murder. And to have you defend with kneejerk ferocity his right to kill someone who wasn't doing anything wrong. You are advocating unchecked violence in the name of some supposed right of self defense which in your mind seems to outweigh any other right that exists, like the right to be safe and secure in their person. Point out to me in the Constitution precisely where this supreme right to self defense is spelled out. No implied right. You originalists don't believe in those. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the breakdown in civilized society you advocate.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:24 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
David says:

DAVID wrote:
Assuming, for the sake of argument,
that he said that, there remains no evidence that he later
initiated a physical battle with decedent
MontereyJack wrote:
Nor is there any evidence that Trayvon initiated a confrontation with Zimmerman.
Then neither of them shud be criminally prosecuted.



MontereyJack wrote:
Your implication that he did is SPECULATIVE, David, one of your favorite words.
Yes, indeed, because there is a significant difference in principle
between pointing out known facts (or reasoning) as distinct from guessing. Get the idea ??


MontereyJack wrote:
Zimmerman had the gun, the racist mind set, the racist invective on the 911 call,
He was the one out looking for trouble,
Burglars ?



MontereyJack wrote:
with a gun,
He has as much right to that as to a Bible or to the NY Times.


MontereyJack wrote:
in violation of the rules under which the neighborhood watch was created,
Maybe the watchmen
will discipline him, but that is irrelevant to homicide.



MontereyJack wrote:
patrolling in violation of the rules under which it was established
Maybe it coud be possible
that thay will throw him out of the watch.



MontereyJack wrote:
(and give me no **** about stand your ground trumping that--he was doing what he should not have been).
He has the right to drive thru his naborhood
and the Constitutional right to speak to anyone that he sees there.
He had that right before the Stand Your Ground Statute was enacted.
He still has that right, if he still lives there.




MontereyJack wrote:
Trayvon was the one who'd gone to the store to get his brother an iced tea. He was the one with the Skittles.
He was the one talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone. He was not the one being stalked.
It was attributed to him that he became violent,
attacking Mr. Z. If u were there looking, then u know whether that is true or not.
I was not there.


MontereyJack wrote:
You're espousing a vigilante society, David,
one where someone's unsubstantiated story is all he needs to get
away with murder.
The burden of proof has always been
and remains on the prosecution, beyond any reasonable doubt.




MontereyJack wrote:
And to have you defend with kneejerk ferocity
his right to kill someone who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Unlike u, I 'm unwilling to dismiss out-of-hand,
the allegation that HE attacked Mr. Z, as he sat in his car,
after the initial confrontation. The police accepted that.
Thay saw the wounds on both of them. It seems plausible to me.
How much attention woud this case get if Trayvon were a white???




MontereyJack wrote:
You are advocating unchecked violence in the name of some supposed right of self defense
U question the existence of the right of self defense????
If we don't have THAT right, then surely we don 't have ANY right,
as all other rights are trivial, relative to the right to defend your life n property.
For instance, the right to a good seat on a public bus for a few minutes
is worth next to nothing, relative to the right of that same person
to defend himself or herself from being torn apart in predatory violence.
( If in doubt on that point, just ask that person about it. )




MontereyJack wrote:
which in your mind seems to outweigh any other right that exists,
O, yes, of course; OBVIOUSLY.
That right is existential and more fundamental than any other right
possibly can be
.


MontereyJack wrote:
like the right to be safe and secure in their person.
That 's the reason that people carry defensive guns.






MontereyJack wrote:
Point out to me in the Constitution precisely where
this supreme right to self defense is spelled out.
The 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 1Oth Amendment, the 14th Amendment; maybe some others.
I 'll give it some thawt, but the same idea need not be set forth a whole lot of times.




MontereyJack wrote:
No implied right. You originalists don't believe in those.
I reject that limitation;
as long as the Founders actally DID imply it, that 's enuf.





MontereyJack wrote:
The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the breakdown
in civilized society you advocate.
U faker!!!
U pretend to be historically well informed.
If u really were informed, then u 'd know that the Founders
did not even accept the idea of a public police force
and that none existed in the USA, nor in England, until
the following century. Traditionally, everyone was expected
to take care of himself personally and Individually. Some of the Colonies
had mandatory gun controls REQUIRING that people be well armed
when going to Church or to work. I guess thay lost too many Christians to bears and Indians.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:37 am
I suggest you look to history. The law that you repeatedly keep citing about taking guns to church seems to have been ONE town in Connecticut in the 17th century, which people seem to have regarded as idiotic since immediately after it was enacted exemptions were requested en masse, and there is question as to whether it was ever actually enforced. It was certainly not general. And there have been very few Indian attacks in the last century and a half, though there certainly were attacks ON the Indians (and almost total breaking of treaties with them--bad example on your part).

And I repeat there is no right of self defense mentioned anywhere in the original constitution or any of the amendments. The only mention of arms is IN CONNECTION WITH THE MILITIA, which was from at least the time of the Tudors and through the Colonial period, exclusively under control of government. It was NOT any group of people who could self-declare themselves a militia. Stand Your Ground laws are a gross perversion of the second amendment's clear purpose, right wing bias on the Supreme Court or no. You're making impications not supported by fact. You're reading your interpretations in, not reading what is clearly there.

The right to life is the fundamental right of all rights, and that was violently taken from Trayvon Martin.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 03:48 am
@MontereyJack,
I had not been aware of towns in Conn.,
but "every...inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him able to bear arms,
a sufficient musket...with [ammunition] and for each default ...
forfeit ten shillings." (New Plymouth 1632)

For the sake of safety, in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt legislation,
colonial gun control laws prohibited going to work, or to Church, in an unarmed condition. (Virginia 1631)

There may have been others, but I agree that it probably was not entirely universal.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 04:36 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
I suggest you look to history.
That 's always a fine idea.


MontereyJack wrote:
The law that you repeatedly keep citing about taking guns to church seems to have been ONE town in Connecticut in the 17th century, which people seem to have regarded as idiotic since immediately after it was enacted exemptions were requested en masse, and there is question as to whether it was ever actually enforced.
I have no information qua any exemptions, in favor of helplessness from the predatory violence of man or beast.
It seems implausible.




MontereyJack wrote:
It was certainly not general.
It was probably not general thru out all of the colonies.



MontereyJack wrote:
And there have been very few Indian attacks in the last century and a half,
though there certainly were attacks ON the Indians (and almost total breaking of treaties with them--bad example on your part).
That 's irrelevant because Constituional rights do not wear out. Thay endure immutably, regardless of Indians.




MontereyJack wrote:
And I repeat there is no right of self defense mentioned anywhere in the original constitution or any of the amendments.
I CAN go thru it all; its not hard,
but its a little time consuming and I already WON the dispute in HELLER and again in McDONALD.


MontereyJack wrote:
The only mention of arms is IN CONNECTION WITH THE MILITIA,
which was from at least the time of the Tudors and through the
Colonial period, exclusively under control of government.
The textual analyses of the professional grammarians
that were accepted without reservation by the USSC,
clearly set forth that the right to keep and bear arms
is not connected to membership in the militia. The USSC had already
said so in other cases, but HELLER was the first one wherein
the issue was squarely presented and argued b4 the Court.
Justice Scalia went thru it with grammatically meticulous care.
This is in addition to the fact that we KNOW what the Founders meant
because thay were not shy about telling us in their writings.
NO ONE; none of them -- supported gun control.
James Madison ran accuracy competitions, with prizes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his 12 year old nephew
reminding him to take his gun with him when he goes out for a walk
and to practice with it for proficiency. He said that it builds character.





MontereyJack wrote:
It was NOT any group of people who could self-declare themselves a militia.
Thay certainly COUD.
There was nothing to stop them; the same as a volunteer fire dept.
or a volunteer library. It was just the guys in the naborhood
taking care of what thay needed to do.
Remember: there were NO police in the USA until the next century.



MontereyJack wrote:
Stand Your Ground laws are a gross perversion of the second amendment's clear purpose,
What?? How??????



MontereyJack wrote:
right wing bias on the Supreme Court or no.
Complaining of a "right wing bias" is like complaining
that your accountant is TOO ACCURATE, or that a surgeon 's hands are TOO CLEAN.
Being right wing means that there is no variation, no deviation,
from the text of the deal (in this case, the Constitution).




MontereyJack wrote:
You're making impications not supported by fact.
You're reading your interpretations in, not reading what is clearly there.
If u point them out, then we can argue them.




MontereyJack wrote:
The right to life is the fundamental right of all rights,
No. The right to self defense is "the fundamental right of all rights".

There is no right to life.

If there were, then when someone gets hit by lightning or a heart attack
or if he drowns while swimming in the ocean, or if he drinks himself to death,
then his rights woud have been violated. Such is not the case.



MontereyJack wrote:
and that was violently taken from Trayvon Martin.
Whether he brought that on himself or not
remains unknown. I have no way of knowing if he attacked Mr. Z.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  5  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 05:10 am
meanwhile, back at the hoodie ranch

this topic has been big news in the UK for a few years, one of the reasons is the use of CCTV there, the hood makes it hard to identify criminals using video evidence

from wiki

Perception

Australia

In June 2011, police in Wynnum, Brisbane launched a 'Hoodie Free Zone' initiative, with shopkeepers encouraged to ask hoodie-wearers to leave. The zone is part of an initiative to educate businesses on how they can avoid armed robberies, in which the clothing is often worn.

Canada

Across Canada, hoodies (also called "bunny hug" in Saskatchewan) are often worn by people in many settings for warmth, protection against wind and comfort. They are often worn under a coat or jacket to provide extra layer of clothing. Hoodies in Canada have no class connotations and are unassociated with criminal intent.

New Zealand

"National Hoody Day", a pro-youth initiative to challenge youth stereotypes, was launched in May 2008 in New Zealand. The campaign resulted in criticism at a number of levels within government, including a local council member (Dale Evans) donning a Ku Klux Klan outfit in protest, citing the hoodie as "not an appropriate article of clothing to celebrate". Many retail complexes have banned the wearing of hoodies and non-compliance and/or defiance can result in eviction or accusation of trespass.

United Kingdom

In the UK, hoodies have been the subject of much criticism; some shoplifters have used the hood to conceal their identities from CCTV cameras in shopping centres. Particularly when worn with a baseball cap, the hoodie has become a trademark of "chavs", or Neds.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/No_hoodies_sign.jpg/220px-No_hoodies_sign.jpg

"No hoodies" sign outside a pub in South London

Angela McRobbie, professor of communications at Goldsmiths College in the UK, says the appeal of the hoodie is because of its promise of anonymity, mystery and anxiety. "The point of origin is obviously black American hip-hop culture, now thoroughly mainstream and a key part of the global economy. Leisure and sportswear adopted for everyday wear suggests a distance from the world of office suit or school uniform. Rap culture celebrates defiance, as it narrates the experience of social exclusion. Musically and stylistically, it projects menace and danger as well as anger and rage. The hooded top is one in a long line of garments chosen by young people, usually boys, to which are ascribed meanings suggesting that they are 'up to no good'. In the past, such appropriation was usually restricted to membership of specific youth cultures - leather jackets, bondage trousers - but nowadays it is the norm among young people to flag up their music and cultural preferences in this way, hence the adoption of the hoodie by boys across the boundaries of age, ethnicity and class."

In May 2005, Bluewater shopping centre in Kent caused outrage by launching a code of conduct which bans its shoppers from sporting hoodies or baseball caps, although the garments remain on sale. John Prescott welcomed the move, stating that he had felt threatened by the presence of hooded teenagers at a motorway service station. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair openly supported this stance and vowed to clamp down on the anti-social behaviour with which hoodie wearers are sometimes associated. London-based rapper Lady Sovereign published a single titled "Hoodie" in protest as part of a "Save the Hoodie" campaign.

In 2005, Coombeshead College in the south-west of England allowed the hoodie to become part of the boys' school uniform, but the hood could be put up only when it rained. The principal, Richard Haigh, stated that the move would help to calm some of what he called the "hysteria" surrounding the garment.

In February 2006, a 58-year-old teacher who was wearing a hooded top was asked to remove it when entering a Tesco store in Swindon. According to the teacher, she was wearing the hood because "my hair's a mess". The store did not have a hoodie policy. The shop apologized and said it was taking action to "make sure this doesn't happen again."

In July 2006, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, made a speech suggesting that the hoodie was worn more for defensive than offensive purposes. The speech was referred to as "hug a hoodie" by the Labour Party.

United States

Throughout the US it is common for middle school, high school and college students to wear sweatshirts with or without hoods that display their respective school names and/or mascots across the chest either as part of a uniform or personal preference. Among the general US population, they are commonly worn while partaking in outdoor activities or as casual dress and are a near-ubiquitous[citation needed] fashion item for children, teenagers and young adults.

Hoodies have become mainstream fashion transcending the hood's original utilitarian purpose, similar to jeans. This has found its way into a variety of styles, even so far as to be worn under a suit jacket.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 06:38 am
@djjd62,
FOR THE RECORD:
I don 't believe that at ANY time in my life,
I have ever worn the name of any school that I attended, nor considered doing so.





David
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 06:52 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
As a dedicated hoodie wearer I have never thought about the message that a hoodie sends.

Smile
Me neither, boomerang!
These garments had been some of my favourite slobbing-around-the-house gear (& on the streets too, on cold days) for ages ....
For years I've worn Bonds windcheaters. Including the front zip-up ones with hoods. It's never occurred to me that I might be mistaken for some sort of unsavoury, dangerous type! Wink
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 07:43 am
@msolga,
Hoodies are only threatening if you have dark skin.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 07:50 am
@maxdancona,
Ah, I see!

Being of Slavic ancestry, I can become quite dark-skinned if I spend a lot of time outside. Like in summer.
Which means I could appear quite threatening in summer, wearing a hooded windcheater? Wink
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 07:53 am
@msolga,
The hoodie doesn't refer to anything with a hood. In the US the term refers to a specific type of clothing. It is a sweatshirt with a hood, the sweatshirt type fabric is important. A windbreaker with a hood doesn't count.

This is a hoodie (being modeled by Phil Laak, a famous poker player affectionately called "The Unabomber").

http://www.poker-babes.com/bio/phil-unabomber-laak/Laak1.jpg
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:00 am
@maxdancona,
That looks exactly like what I'd call a windcheater , max ... only difference - some of mine have a zip up the front.

I think maybe what you (in the US) call sweatshirts, we (in Oz) call windcheaters.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:08 am
@msolga,
Windbreakers here are a thinner, rain-resistant or waterproof material. You'd usually put a windbreaker on over a sweatshirt/ hoodie it's a windy/ rainy day.

Miami Heat yesterday:

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/XyRCXNxUHJOdGMyMPbzdOQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusnbaexperts/Members-of-the-Miami-Heat-wear-hooded-sweatshirts.-Photo-via-LeBron-James-Twitter-account.jpg

Quote:
LeBron James tweeted a picture on Friday afternoon that showed the two-time league MVP and his Miami Heat teammates clad in hooded sweatshirts, hoods up and eyes down.
The photo, accompanied by the hashtags "#WeAreTrayvonMartin," "#Hoodies," "#Stereotyped" and "#WeWantJustice," followed a mass protest Thursday in which people all over the world donned hooded sweatshirts in solidarity with the family of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old high school student who was found dead on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/miami-heat-put-hoods-show-support-trayvon-martin-182102000.html
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:20 am
@sozobe,
Then I've got to say, though ours look pretty much identical, they are generally not waterproof. Made of heavy-ish cotton, with fleecy coating inside.

What I'd call a "windcheater" looks very similar to the Miami Heat photograph you posted, soz. Usually minus the stripes across the chest (in the photograph) , though.
Some with a hood, some not. They are dagging around, very casual gear.
Though I've not heard the hooded variety referred to as "hoodies" here.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:40 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Then I've got to say, though ours look pretty much identical, they are generally not waterproof. Made of heavy-ish cotton, with fleecy coating inside.


in the US & Canada it would be called a sweatshirt, until recently you would have had hooded or just plain sweatshirt, but hoodie has become a slang term for the hooded version

i myself prefer 100% cotton, non zippered hooded sweatshirts when i can get them (or rather afford them these days)
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:44 am
@djjd62,
I think we are talking about the same thing, dj.
But who knows for certain? Smile
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:49 am
@msolga,
it seems like it
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 08:50 am
@djjd62,
Yep, sounds like it to me, too.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 09:15 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
The politics of hoodie wearing
Setting forth the obvious:
de facto, thay make good masks.


0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 09:45 am
I wear hoodies practically every day but I'm a girl so I think I've escaped any hoodie bias.

Mo wears a hoodie practically every day but he's white so he's escaped any hoodie bias.

I can't imagine having to counsel him about such wardrobe and listening to Geraldo made me realize that such a simple choice isn't so simple for many families. It made me realize that just because I'm not suspicious of people wearing hoodies that that doesn't mean that some people aren't. If I thought wearing a certain type of clothing put Mo at risk of being hurt or being killed because it caused people to be suspicious I wouldn't want him to wear it.

And I'm definately not one of those "What will people think!?" types.

You know, the only people I know who say "race doesn't matter" are white people. Non-white people I know laugh at this. They say "Race shouldn't matter, but it does matter if you're not white." I think there is something very true about that.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2020 at 08:50:02